Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [media] s5p-jpeg: Adding Exynos7 JPEG variant

[Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>]

Hi Tony,

On 01/07/2015 12:22 PM, Tony K Nadackal wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
>
> On  Wednesday, January 07, 2015 3:43 PM : Jacek Anaszewski wrote,
>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 12/19/2014 08:38 AM, Tony K Nadackal wrote:
>>> Fimp_jpeg used in Exynos7 is a revised version. Some register
>>> configurations are slightly different from JPEG in Exynos4.
>>> Added one more variant SJPEG_EXYNOS7 to handle these differences.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony K Nadackal <tony.kn@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>    .../bindings/media/exynos-jpeg-codec.txt           |  2 +-
>>>    drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-core.c        | 61
> ++++++++++++++++++-
>> ---
>>>    drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-core.h        | 10 ++--
>>>    drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-hw-exynos4.c  | 32 ++++++------
>>>    drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-hw-exynos4.h  |  8 +--
>>>    drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-regs.h        | 17 ++++--
>>>    6 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos-jpeg-codec.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos-jpeg-codec.txt
>>> index bf52ed4..cd19417 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos-jpeg-codec.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos-jpeg-codec.txt
>>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Required properties:
>>>
>>>    - compatible	: should be one of:
>>>    		  "samsung,s5pv210-jpeg", "samsung,exynos4210-jpeg",
>>> -		  "samsung,exynos3250-jpeg";
>>> +		  "samsung,exynos3250-jpeg", "samsung,exynos7-jpeg";
>>>    - reg		: address and length of the JPEG codec IP register set;
>>>    - interrupts	: specifies the JPEG codec IP interrupt;
>>>    - clock-names   : should contain:
>>
>> This should be put in a separate patch.
>
> Checkpatch gives warning if this change is not there.
> If that is ok with you, I will make this change a separate patch.

If the patch updating the DT documentation will go first, then
checkpatch shouldn't raise a warning.

-- 
Best Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski